If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Two of Chris's movies in a row ending with ambiguous cliffhangers? The cinema would have rioted, and the newspapers might say M Night Shyamalan's evil teachings live on.

I don't know i still think the ending is quite ambigious with its different look to the film then everything else. But i did not have a problem with it because it basically was just nice and didn't take away fro the real point of the ending I found.

Two of Chris's movies in a row ending with ambiguous cliffhangers? The cinema would have rioted, and the newspapers might say M Night Shyamalan's evil teachings live on.

I think when it comes to massive trilogies we prefer everything neatly wrapped up. Lord of the Rings went on for a gluttonous half an hour after the end of the quest to show us what happened to all these characters who we had so much time and emotion invested in.

Two of Chris's movies in a row ending with ambiguous cliffhangers? The cinema would have rioted, and the newspapers might say M Night Shyamalan's evil teachings live on.

An ambiguous ending need not be a cliffhanger, especially since it was clearly indicated who was taking up the cause. I don't think Blade Runner and Inception were any poorer for having the endings they did.

Not exactly the ending of the story, but the question of whether or not Deckard was a human or a replicant. Of course this was given the Word of God treatment after the film, but I feel those kinds of things sour the flavor of the movie somewhat.

The Final Cut extended the Unicorn dream sequences and changed a few minor scenes, reinforcing the idea that Deckard is a replicant. Personally I'm not a big fan of this interpretation, because I feel it undermines one of the film's pivotal themes. I'd still say the Final Cut is the best version though, as it clears up quite a few inconsistencies, improves the special effects and has better pacing. If you're only going to watch one version of Blade Runner, make it this one.

Typing that made me realize that in most cases I like the Director's Cut less than the theatrical version. Most of the time the restored scenes were cut out of the final product for a reason and reinstoring them only messes up the pacing. This was the case for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Alien, Aliens and Apocalypse Now. Offhand, the only films I can think of where the Director's cut was an actual improvement are Blade Runner, Brazil and Kingdom of Heaven.

He's fighting super-powered military replicants, there are replicants which don't have advanced physical abilities. The true reason he can't be a replicant is because it doesn't gel with what the themes of the film are telling us.

Though if you want to try to disprove it by the plot, I guess it wouldn't make much sense to give a android an alcoholic addiction. Dude is pounding them down like a college fullback.

Blade Runner you could watch that film and by the end of it think everyone is a replicant, i did after my third viewing very closely seeing the signs...if you want to look out for the red eyes! Good film, holds up with multiple viewings and allows you to see different things...I actually like the Deckard is a replicant thing because it enhances the theme of the movie.

The Jacket ​- Really intriguing drama about a man who goes into a mental institution for a crime and has to wear a jacket and be in a solitary morgue style box. I won't say anymore because its more intriguing and great if you have no idea where its going but it definitly does surprise you and move you, and its very questionable whether hes actually doing what hes doing or its all in his mind, but it does give hope anyway at the end and is very moving. Recommended

I actually don't know why people have a problem with Rises ending is it because its a happy one?

I know a few people who dislike the ending for this very reason.

Most peoples reasons some to be
*HERE BE SPOILERS*

The shoe horning of "Robin" in as a name, I would've thought it'd be cooler if he took one of the comic book names, but I also understand not everyone in the cinema reads comic books or knows any of the Robin characters actual names.
Reviling that Bruce Wayne didn't die,
Reviling that Alfred saw Bruce and Selina together,
The fact Bruce and Celina are together and are happy.

[spoilers]I think even Christopher Nolan is telling you it doesn't matter, the whole point of the movie is Batman really rising to have Gotham fight its own battles so obviously Batman made the ultimate sacrifice, whether Bruce Wayne is alive or not actually doesn't matter to the film, it was just a ncie send off to his character, the important thing is Batman is dead in the eyes of the public...what Gordon said is true of the movie "it doesn't matter, they will just know its The Batman"[/spoilers]

Actually, one part that I thought was insanely stupid in the movie was this

*SPOILER*When he's in the pit and it comes to climbing out of it, he can't figure out how to do it at first. The part that annoyed me was this is Bruce Wayne, a man of intelligence and he didn't notice what would be a much easier way than trying to scale it.

Theres a rope thats connected at some point near the top (I don't think it was all the way up) but it's connected to a ring or a loop or a stone and can support the weight of a man falling off the side of the wall. The rope is tied around the waist of the person trying to climb out and someone else holds onto it (or ties it?) on the ground.

Why not tie the rope about yourself, hold onto the lose end that the other dude is holding, use your upper body to pull down on that creating tension and start walking up the wall? Instead of making that leap, you could try shimmy over. Or if the rope did go all the way up (wasnt it there when he got out at the top actually?) just use it all the way up.​*SPOILER ENDS*